Friday, November 30, 2012

Pat Robertson’s Word or God’s Word: Which Will You Believe?

by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG-U.S.

November 30, 2012

On a recent episode of the 700 Club program on the CBN TV
network, hosted by Pat Robertson, a letter from a lady named Michelle
was read in which she expressed her concern for her family. She said
that her husband and teenage boys were questioning the Bible. Michelle
wrote the following:

They tell me if the Bible is truth then I should be able to
reasonably explain the existence of dinosaurs. This is just one of many
things they question. . . . How do I explain things to them that the Bible doesn’t cover? I am so afraid that they are walking away from God.

Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this,
but Bishop Ussher—God bless him!—wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he
said it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t.

And you go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating, you’ve got
all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in
time out in the Dakotas. You know, they’ve got “Sue,” that big. . .
what was it now, the fierce one—[Moderator suggests
Tyrannosaurus]—yeah, Tyrannosaurus rex, and I think this one had a
female name like Susie or something but anyhow—they’re out there!—and so
there was a time that these giant reptiles were on the earth, and it
was before the time of the Bible.
So don’t try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible. That’s Bishop Ussher.

And so if you fight revealed science you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was.

Well, we are certainly not going to lynch Mr. Robertson. But it is
so sad to see a Christian leader making such a statement. It is
precisely this type of compromise within the church that has caused such
an erosion of people’s faith in the Word of God and a mass exodus of
young people from the church. Here Mr. Robertson is saying that we
should hold the ideas and opinions of man above the very Word of God
itself. Let’s examine his statements more closely.

Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this,
but Bishop Ussher—God bless him!—wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he
said it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t.

Robertson implies that young-earth creationists claim the earth is
only about 6,000 years old solely on the basis of the work of Archbishop Ussher.
Additionally, several major news agencies reported on Robertson’s
comments and stated that Answers in Genesis holds to a 6,000-year-old
earth because of Bishop Ussher. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While Ussher was a brilliant and careful scholar and far more
knowledgeable on this issue of chronology than most of his critics, we
believe that the earth and all of creation is young not because Ussher says so, but because the Bible says so!

We know that Creation Week lasted six ordinary days because the Bible says so. A study of the use of the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 clearly indicates that God told us He created in six ordinary, twenty-four-hour days. So how do you put millions of years into the text where it plainly does not fit?
Further, Exodus 20:11 tell us, “For
in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all
that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed
the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” So again we see that God created everything
in six ordinary days. (There was no “before the time of the Bible,” as
Robertson claims, in which dinosaurs or anything else could exist, as we
will discuss further below.)

So with a six-day Creation Week as our starting point, we can use
the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, along with other information in
Scripture such as people’s ages, dates of births, and dates of key
events, to come to conclusions about the age of the earth. This is
precisely what Ussher did. And we recognize and honor this great scholar
for the work that he did. We also owe a debt to many other great men
who have done similar work throughout the ages. A number of these
scholars—independent of Ussher and relying solely on Scripture—have
concluded the age of the earth was in the range of 6,000–7,000 years.

It is true that the Bible itself does not contain a verse explicitly
stating the age of the earth. A statement like “the earth is xxxx years
old” would be wrong the year after it was written!
The Bible does, however, give us information to calculate
reasonably accurately the age of the creation and conclude that all of
creation is young (here meaning a few thousand, not millions, of years old).
Robertson sets the Bible’s authority on this subject aside, essentially
inventing a “before the time of the Bible,” to accommodate what he
thinks man knows about dates and dinosaurs. Robertson says the
following:

And you go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating, you’ve got
all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in
time out in the Dakotas. You know, they’ve got “Sue,” that big. . .
what was it now, the fierce one—[Moderator suggests
Tyrannosaurus]—yeah, Tyrannosaurus rex, and I think this one had a
female name like Susie or something but anyhow—they’re out there!—and so
there was a time that these giant reptiles were on the earth, and it
was before the time of the Bible.

There are so many problems here, it is difficult to know where to begin.
First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that
carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses
this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating
methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things
that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not
derive their millions of years from carbon dating. The outer limit for
carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years. Secular scientists interpret
data from other radiometric dating methods to arrive at vast ages for
the earth. However, these interpretations are based on a number of
unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions and the inconsistencies of
radiometric dates have been dealt with extensively on our ministry
website.2

Next, Robertson believes that the mere existence of dinosaurs is
evidence for an old earth. After all, he says, they are “frozen in
time.” He states that they were on the earth “before the time of the
Bible.” This is puzzling because the Bible claims to give the true
history of the world, and it begins with the creation of the earth
itself. So exactly where does Robertson put the dinosaurs? Surely, not
before the creation of the earth!

You see, starting with the plain teaching of Scripture, we can give
sound answers about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are land animals and were
created on the sixth day of Creation Week (not “before the time of the
Bible”) along with all the other land animals and man. They lived and
reproduced for hundreds of years before the Flood. Then God led at least
two of each kind of land animal to Noah. Therefore, two of every kind
of dinosaur were on board the Ark. During the Flood the entire surface
of the earth was remodeled and billions of creatures were trapped in
water-deposited sediments, forming fossils (including those dinosaurs
that Robertson says were “frozen in time”). After the Flood, the waters
receded, and the dinosaurs and the other animals got off the Ark and
lived on earth with man. Evidently, the dinosaurs eventually went
extinct like so many other creatures have over the centuries.
Michelle, who posed the question of Pat Robertson, thought the Bible
did not explain the existence of dinosaurs. But when we realize that
dinosaurs were simply land animals, it is easy to see that the Bible’s
account of creation and the global Flood explains the dinosaurs—their existence and their presence in the fossil record.
Robertson’s answer failed her completely because he did not understand
this very simple fact: dinosaurs were land animals. And he is not paying
attention to the details of Genesis. Then Robertson went on to throw
out clear truths of Scripture.

So don’t try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible. That’s Bishop Ussher.

And so if you fight revealed science you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was.

And here by far is the most dangerous statement Robertson made on
his broadcast. Basically, he is saying to our youth, “Don’t believe the
Bible; believe in man’s ideas!” Furthermore, he states that if we don’t
use “revealed science” to reinterpret the Bible, we will lose our
children.

Here he is totally wrong. This type of compromise is actually causing our young people to walk away from the church. We documented this connection in the book Already Gone.
The book’s statistical analysis of a national survey helps us
understand why our young people are leaving the church. One of the major
reasons is the hypocrisy of those who, like Robertson, pick and choose
the parts of the Bible they want to believe and reject the rest.

Robertson promotes the idea of millions of years and ridicules
Christians who believe the earth is young (many of whom, unlike
Robertson, have earned PhDs from secular universities in relevant fields
of science such as geology, geophysics, and astrophysics). He claims we
must reinterpret the Bible because he is sure the earth is millions of
years old. The basis of his certainty, he says, is “revealed science.”

“Revealed science”? This is an odd term. In the Bible we have the
revealed Word of God, true and completely reliable. We therefore often
refer to the Bible as “divine revelation.” But God has not “revealed”
millions of years to scientists. Robertson’s terminology here is
confused and confusing.
Robertson apparently does not understand the difference between operational science and historical science.

Operational science is science of the here and now—science done in
the present. This is the science that gives us technology and cures for
disease. Operational, experimental science put man on the moon and gave
us computers, cell phones, and wonderful medical advances.

Historical science, on the other hand, is the sort of science used
to explain our origins. Because we cannot return to the time of our
origins to make actual observations and scientific tests, we must rely
on a historical record describing that time. Scientists can either
accept the biblical record of those unobservable events long past, or
they can make unverifiable assumptions that reject the biblical history
provided by God. In attempting to explain all that exists while
rejecting God’s Word, those scientists are basically just telling
stories about the past. They make assumptions about the unobservable
past based on their own anti-biblical worldview and then use those
assumptions to interpret the evidence (e.g., rock layers and fossils)
that they observe in the present. For example, they find a fossil of an
extinct creature and then make assumptions about how it lived, what it
ate, how long ago it existed, etc. Millions-of-years interpretations of
radiometric measurements rely on related anti-biblical assumptions.

Apparently, Robertson thinks that historical (origins) science and
operational (experimental) science are one and the same. He fails to
understand that the time of our origins—which is, incidentally, the beginning of the “time of the Bible,” not “before the time of the Bible”—is not available for scientific testing.

Robertson feels that “revealed science” trumps Scripture. Therefore,
he indicates that by using “science” we can decide which parts of the
Bible are true and which are not. What he really means is that we must
use the majority view among scientists (most of whom are lost sinners
still in rebellion against God) to interpret the Bible, rather than
using the Bible to interpret the Bible.
Robertson believes Genesis cannot be real history because secular
scientists dogmatically insist on millions of years. Therefore,
Robertson advises us to reject the history in Genesis (and also,
incidentally, Exodus 20:11) because man says so.

Robertson would have our youth reject Genesis because of the ideas
of fallible man, but then would he logically say that the gospel should
be rejected by the same criteria? After all, “science” (i.e., the
majority of biologists and anthropologists) insists that virgins don’t
have babies and dead men don’t come to life again after three days. So,
based on science alone, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus
Christ would only be myths. So why not teach that the Gospel accounts
should be rejected?
While Robertson does not deny the literal history of Adam and Eve
and their literal fall into sin, his acceptance of millions of years is
an admission that millions of years of death ravaged the earth before
God ever uttered His curse (Genesis 3:14–18) upon the earth and man because of sin. Romans 8:19–23 clearly connects this curse on the whole creation to Adam’s sin and, along with Colossians 1:19-20,
declares that the death and resurrection of Christ is the solution to
set us free from that curse. The full redemptive work of Christ will be
complete when He returns and creates a new heavens and new earth where
there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3). Robertson’s position, like all old-earth views, therefore confuses and undermines the gospel message.

To put it plainly, if the history in Genesis can be rejected, then
why should we believe the gospel that is based on that history? If
Robertson is correct and the earth is millions of years old, then what
do we do with the fossils? If the fossils document millions of years of
earth history, then we have millions of years of death and suffering
before Adam’s sin. If man evolved from ape-like creatures over the last
few million years, then there is a trail of death in the evolution of
man.

So what about verses like Genesis 2:17? God said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Basically, God told Adam, “Don’t do that or you are going to die.”
If man evolved, what would Adam’s logical response be? How about this:
“So what? I’m going to die anyway! Everything dies!” So God’s warning
would have been meaningless.

Yet God’s curse on man’s sin heralded the beginning of death in both
animals and man. Only Christ can free man from the curse of death.

Scripture here tells us that Jesus went to the Cross to save those who died in Adam. Additional Scriptures (Romans 8:19–23, Revelation 21:3–5; 22:3) inform us that Christ’s sacrifice will eventually result in an end of the curse of death upon all of creation, “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21).
Yet in Robertson’s view, those New Testament verses cannot be true.
Evolution would require death before man’s sin. The millions-of-years
view, by demanding death before sin, challenges the gospel message itself.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death
through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)

Here we are clearly told that death came as a result of man’s
disobedience. But that cannot be true if Robertson is correct. And once
again, man evolving from ape-like creatures would require death to be
present before manned sinned. Robertson’s beliefs on this matter, by
denying the cause of the curse of death that Christ came to rectify, are
logically an attack on the gospel itself.

So if Robertson would encourage us and our children to mold our
thinking based on the views of secular humanists, then why not adopt
their view on other things? Why not adopt the views of the secular world
about abortion, about marriage, about homosexual behavior, about
premarital sex, about child-rearing, and about morality? After all, if
the secular world is wise enough to tell us how to interpret our Bibles,
it must be wise enough to guide us in other areas, too.

It is compromisers like Robertson who actually lead our children
astray. Somehow they cannot or will not see that actively encouraging
our youth to doubt the Word of God has led to an enormous loss of
confidence in the authority of Scripture among our young people (and
adults in the church, too). We are not, however, justified in picking
and choosing the parts of the Bible that we want to believe.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
(2 Timothy 3:16)

We do not need to lean on the views and opinions of the secular
world to determine which parts of the Bible are true. Either all of
Scripture is true or else its overall trustworthiness is called into
question. And we shouldn’t allow the secular, godless world tell us what
Scripture means.

Our youth see this hypocrisy, so why can’t Robertson? Perhaps he is
seeking the approval of man rather than the approval of God. Only he can
answer this question.

In conclusion, it would be our prayer that Michelle and her family
would someday have the opportunity to visit the Creation Museum. Here
they would find answers—answers that would encourage them and strengthen
their faith that God’s Word is worthy of their trust from the very
first verse. They would soon understand that the Bible does have the
answers they need. And at the museum bookstore or on our website they
would find a wealth of scientific evidence that exposes the lie of
evolution and millions of years and confirms the literal history of
Genesis 1–11.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to
give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in
you, with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)

You see, we at Answers in Genesis really do “believe in telling them
the way it was.” We do that by presenting a sound, logical defense of
the faith. And it all begins in Genesis.

Featured Product

“Now that I have updated, revised, and expanded The Lie, I
believe it’s an even more powerful, eyeopening book for the church—an
essential resource to help all of us to understand the great delusion
that permeates our world! The message of The Lie IS the message
of AiG and why we even exist! It IS the message God has laid on our
hearts to bring before the church! It IS a vital message for our time.” – Ken Ham, president and founder of AiG–U.S.

Answers Magazine

Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based
magazine from Answers in Genesis. In it you will find fascinating
content and stunning photographs that present creation and worldview
articles along with relevant cultural topics. Each quarterly issue
includes a detachable chart, a pullout children’s magazine, a unique
animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles, plus
bonus content. Why wait? Subscribe today and get a FREE DVD download!

Note: I re-uploaded this video 12/3/12 because the previous one showed < 3 minutes of the 28 minute video.

God created the entire universe in which our planet, solar system and galaxy are located. Join Paul and Eric as they discuss this enormous part of God’s creation and how we can understand it scientifically, as well as the significance of animal classification.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

That's a Fact - Evolving Bacteria

With all the bad bacteria out there, scientists are working hard to develop new antibiotics to combat them. But these microbes often mutate when they reproduce, making some of them resistant to medicine. Is this process “evolution in action”?

That’s a Fact is an online show, produced by the Institute for Creation Research, to showcase one truth at a time about the Bible, creation, and science in a fun, visual, and engaging format—and in 2 minutes or less. Powered by ICR (Institute for Creation Research), each That’s a Fact show gets us thinking about scientific discoveries and how they relate to the Bible. Keep up with each episode through this show site, and share That’s a Fact with your friends!

Whale Tale Two
Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm

Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify.
The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form.

Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm

As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are really very functional pelvic bones instead:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.

The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm

The time for the supposed transition of whales, from some four legged creature, has now been dramatically shortened;

Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011
Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html

"Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskinevolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more

Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have

It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils

Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid:

Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species from whales. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:
Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010

Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty

Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011
Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html

The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
Excerpt: For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers.uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/

A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver - 1989
Excerpt: The results of experiment II indicated that the dolphin required approximately 7.4 dB higherE e /N than an optimal detector to detect the phantom target.profiles.wizfolio.com/loisdankiewicz/publications/2260/27414/

A false killer whale adjusts its hearing when it echolocates.- 2008
Excerpt: the animal has an active 'automatic gain control' mechanism in her hearing based on both forward masking that balances outgoing pulse intensity and time between pulse and echo, and active hearing control.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18490386

This following videos and articles take a honest look at just what Darwinian evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain supposed whale evolution from a scientific point of view:

“That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent."

(Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 44, pgs. S117-S120)
What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - videoyoutube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM

"Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskinevolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more

Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have

When is a Whale a Whale? by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).
A search of texts on mammals for fossils of creatures resembling Ambulocetus failed to produce one closely resembling Ambulocetus, although Allodesmus, an extinct aquatic carnivore believed to have preceded walruses, bears some resemblance.[10]

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Thewissen and coworkers would dare to call Ambulocetus a "whale" when we note the fact that Robert Carroll, in his voluminous tome, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water. Carroll states, "Mesonyx was the size and proportions of a wolf and, perhaps, had a similar way of life."[12] Carroll and others believe that the skull shape and the dentition of what they think were early whales resembled mesonychids. They therefore have adopted the mesonychids as the land mammal from which whales evolved. Now Carroll suggests we place the mesonychids in the Cetacea. Presto! These wolf-like animals are now whales! Who says evolutionists have no transitional forms?

Conclusion
What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists, certain that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.

When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land. icr.org/article/when-whale-whale/

Robert Carroll, a highly regarded evolutionist and an expert in vertebrate paleontology, admits as follows: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales." (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 329.) (OF Note; a few sentences later he directly contradicts this honest statement)

Summary
Darwin was a product of his time, nurturing, at best, a deistic conception of God and a naturalistic view of mechanical

laws operating on the world. Second, he presented what we might call an evolution theodicy, which distanced a Creator from natural evil. Darwin, consequently, accelerated a movement rather than starting one. God is simultaneously absolved and made irrelevant by being reduced to a cause of causes or first cause, remote, unknowable, a God who has not spoken nor revealed Himself.

This self-regulating universe operating in terms of impersonal laws in a chain of being was a revival of Gnosticism. God's work and His words are separate; the moral and the physical are completely independent -- alien to one another. Thus religion and "science" are to be kept separate: the evolutionary worldview deals with the problems of moral and natural evil by having God appear and disappear as required.

Go to the 10th page of the PDF below for Pastor Boot's article on this topic.

Explore each day of creation in fascinating detail. The Six Days of Genesis fills a void in the creation student's library. It follows the six creation days, as found in the first two chapters of the Bible, expounding each Scripture with scientific facts and theologically sound doctrine. Each section of the matching study guide contains relevant Scripture quotations, a brief introduction, a reading assignment from The Six Days of Genesis book, discussion questions, and quotes that correlate with the DVD sessions. You will be revitalized in your study of this paramount foundation of our faith!
Package contains six DVDs and one study guide, with the following sessions:

In the Beginning, God

The First Three Days

The Bible's Astronomy

Creatures of Air and Water

Creatures of Land

After His Likeness

With The Six Days of Genesis, you'll enjoy a meticulous exploration of each day of creation, with the intriguing kind of insights that Paul Taylor is so great at uncovering!

Monday, November 19, 2012

http://creation.com | This animated sequence shows the ATP Synthase enzyme in operation. The animation is based on an incredible series of scientific discoveries. Only the colours show artistic license.

ATP, or Adenosine Tri-Phosphate, is the energy currency of the cell. ATP is produced by a tiny molecular rotary motor, rotating at up to 7,000 rpm. These are so small that 100,000 would fit side-by-side in a millimetre. A current of protons drives the motor, unlike man-made electric motors, which use electrons.

This portion of the enzyme is where Adenosine Di-Phosphate is combined with a phosphate ion, in the presence of a catalyst to produce ATP which is then released, making way for the next cycle. A top view of the enzyme shows the sequential operation. Almost every bio-chemical process in your body requires ATP.

Such a nano-machine exhibits all the characteristics of super-intelligent design. ATP is vital for life and many of these motors were needed before the first living cell could exist. An evolutionary impossibility!

Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)

In our everyday experience, we can usually tell whether something has been
designed. The main evidence is high information content. The information content of any arrangement
is the size, in bits, of the shortest algorithm required to generate that arrangement.
This means that repetitive structures, like crystals, have a low information content,
because all that is needed is to specify a few positions, then the instructions
‘more of the same’. The difference between a crystal and an enzyme or
DNA is like the difference between a book containing nothing but ABCD repeated and
a book of Shakespeare.

On a practical level, the information specifies the many parts needed to make machines
work. Often, the removal of one part can disrupt the whole machine. Biochemist Michael
Behe, in his bookDarwin’s Black Box (right), calls
this irreducible complexity.1
He gives the example of a very simple machine: a mousetrap. This would not work
without a platform, holding bar, spring, hammer and catch, all in the right place.
The thrust of Behe’s book is that many structures in living organisms show
irreducible complexity, far in excess of a mousetrap or indeed any man-made machine.

Motors: a case study

Motors are irreducibly complex, because they need many parts working together to
function. For example, an electric motor needs a power source, fixed stator, movable
rotor, and a commutator or slip rings.

The more parts needed for a machine, the harder it is to make it smaller. Miniaturisation
is such a vital part of the computer industry, and the best human minds are constantly
working at it. And though miniaturised motors would be very useful, e.g. for unblocking
clogged arteries and blood cleaning, the number of parts makes it difficult to make
them below a certain size. But ingenious scientists are making them smaller all
the time.2

However the design in living organisms has far exceeded our most painstaking efforts.
Bacteria propel themselves using flagella (singular flagellum,
from the Latin for whip), filaments propelled by a true rotary motor. This motor
is only the size of a virus, thus far smaller than anything man-made. Yet it can
rotate at over 1000 times per second.3

But even this impressively tiny motor is not the tiniest in God’s creation.
In a paper published in March 1997, Hiroyuki Noji et al. directly observed
the rotation of the enzyme F1-ATPase, a subunit of a larger
enzyme, ATP synthase.4,5 This had been suggested as the mechanism for the enzyme’s
operation by Paul Boyer.6 Structural
determination by X-ray diffraction by a team led by John Walker had supported this
theory.7 A few months after Noji et
al published their work, it was announced that Boyer and Walker had won
a half share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their discovery.8
The F1-ATPase motor has nine components—five different proteins
with the stoichiometry of 3a:3b:1g:1d:1e. In bovine mitochondria, they contain 510,
482, 272, 146 and 50 amino acids respectively, so Mr = 371,000. F1-ATPase
is a flattened sphere about 10 nm across by 8 nm high—so tiny that 1017
would fill the volume of a pinhead. This has been shown to spin ‘like
a motor’ to produce ATP, a chemical which is the ‘energy currency’
of life.9 This motor produces an immense
torque (turning force) for its size—in the experiment, it rotated a strand
of another protein, actin, 100 times its own length. Also, when driving
a heavy load, it probably changes to a lower gear, as any well-designed motor should.

ATP synthase also contains the membrane-embedded FO subunit functioning
as a proton (hydrogen ion) channel. Protons flowing through FO provide
the driving force of the F1-ATPase motor. They turn a wheel-like structure
as water turns a water wheel, but researchers are still trying to determine precisely
how. This rotation changes the conformation of the three active sites on the enzyme.
Then each in turn can attach ADP and inorganic phosphate to form ATP. Unlike most
enzymes, where energy is needed to link the building blocks, ATP synthase uses energy
to link them to the enzyme, and throw off the newly formed ATP molecules. Separating
the ATP from the enzyme needs much energy.

Note: the names of the two components are historical. The F1 unit comes
from the term ‘Fraction 1’, and the name FO (written as a
subscript capital O, not zero) is due to its being the oligomycin-binding fraction.

ATP synthase is the central enzyme in energy conversion in mitochondria (where they
are embedded into the cristae, folds in the mitochondrion’s inner
membrane), chloroplasts and bacteria. This probably makes ATP synthase the most
ubiquitous protein on Earth. Since energy is required for life, and all life uses
ATP as its energy currency (each of us synthesizes and consumes half our bodyweight
of ATP per day!), life could not have evolved before this motor was fully functional.
Natural selection by definition is differential reproduction, so requires self-reproducing
entities to start with. So even if a series of gradual steps could be imagined up
this peak of ‘Mount Improbable’, there would be no natural selection
to enable that climb.

One of the Nature articles was appropriately entitled ‘Real Engines
of Creation’. Unfortunately, despite the evidence for exquisite design, many
scientists (including the editor of Nature) still have a blind faith that
mutations and natural selection could build such machines.

Animation of ATP synthase.

Would any evidence convince evolutionists?

The famous British evolutionist (and communist) J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that
evolution could never produce ‘various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet,
which would be useless till fairly perfect.’10
Therefore such machines in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false.
These molecular motors have indeed fulfilled one of Haldane’s criteria. Also,
turtles11 and monarch butterflies12 which use magnetic sensors for
navigation fulfil Haldane’s other criterion. I wonder whether Haldane would
have had a change of heart if he had been alive to see these discoveries. Many evolutionists
rule out intelligent design a priori, so the evidence, overwhelming as
it is, would probably have no effect.

Service, R.F., 1997. Awards for High-Energy Molecules and Cool
Atoms. Science 278(5338):578–579. The third winner
is Jens Skou of the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Forty years ago, he was the
first to identify an enzyme that moves substances through cell membranes (in this
case, sodium and potassium ions). This is a key function of all cells.
Return to text

ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate.
It is a high energy compound, and releases this energy by losing a phosphate group
to give ADP, adenosine diphosphate.
Return to text

Friday, November 16, 2012

http://creation.com
Inside a living cell is an amazing transportation system. Proteins have to be delivered to the correct part of the cell to perform their intended functions. This animation, based on a lot of clever research over a number of years, shows how it happens.

Highways, made of microtubules, are assembled by interlocking proteins, each manufactured in accordance with the coded instructions on the cells DNA. Marching along a microtubule is the kinesin motor, the hero of our story, carrying a huge sack of proteins to be delivered to a pre-determined place in the cell. Here the proteins will be released to fulfil their functions.

A kinesin linear motor uses one ATP to provide the energy for each step and takes 125,000 steps to cover one millimetre!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Episode 14—Radioisotope dating—An evolutionist’s best friend?

Summary

Does radioisotope dating provide solid scientific evidence for ‘billions of years’? This episode summarizes huge problems with this dating method and highlights recent research results that supports a young earth.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

By Design

Evidence for nature's Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible

Dr Jonathan Sarfati presents case after case for amazing design in the living world, and demolishes theories of chemical evolution of the first life. Yet unlike many in the prominent Intelligent Design Movement, he is up-front about the truth of the Bible. This enables him to refute many anti-design arguments, and answer the key question: ‘Who is the Designer?’

This book is also available in electronic (Kindle) format from Amazon.com, by clicking here. Please be aware that Amazon is not a CMI entity and that they transact in $US.

Format: Soft cover

Audience: High School–Adult

Author: Dr Jonathan Sarfati

Pages: 260

Product Code: 10-2-524

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist (Australia)

Biography

Dr Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.
Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).1 Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.

In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for Journal of Creation, CMI’s in-depth peer-reviewed publication, as well as contributing to CMI’s website.
In 1999, his first book was published—Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been widely circulated and publicized. Refuting Evolution now has 450,000 copies in print. Later that year he was a co-author of the updated and expanded Answers Book [note: now entitled The Creation Answers Book], answering 20 of the most-asked questions about creation/evolution. He later wrote Refuting Evolution 2, countering the PBS Evolution series and an anticreationist article in Scientific American.

In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’ See the introductory chapter and some reviews.

In 2006, he co-authored 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History with Don Batten, as a concise reference guide for Christians, including pastors and theologians, why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.

That year, Dr Sarfati emigrated to the USA with his wife to work in the CMI–USA office as speaker and Head Scientist.

In 2012, he considerably expanded and updated a classic general apologetics book, Christianity for Skeptics, by Dr Steve Kumar of New Zealand. This presents a positive case for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and answers challenges from suffering, atheism, Eastern philosophy, and Islam. The update now also contains cutting edge material on design in nature, the Christian roots of science, and answering the ‘new atheists’.

Dr Sarfati is also a keen chess player. He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads, and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969–1972, in a tournament game (those interested in the game score and ‘post-mortem’ (i.e. post-game analysis) photograph can see this chess site). In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (See an example at the Croydon Chess Club). Twelve is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right.

Interview on Crossroads TV, Canada, 4 November 2010. “Jim Cantelon speaks with Dr Jonathan Sarfati about his book The Greatest Hoax On Earth? which meets Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth head-on. He answers Dawkins’ challenge. He shows that to believe the Bible’s account of Creation/Fall/Redemption does not commit intellectual suicide, but it is the intellectually superior position.” Part 1, Part 2.

Amazon.com book reviews

Dr Sarfati was a Top-1000 Reviewer at Amazon.com—see his Reviews Page (Off-site—Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in these reviews, especially on non-creation–related topics such as chess, are his alone, not necessarily those of Creation Ministries International).